In The Great Gatsby, in the end, does Daisy choose Tom or Gatsby? Why?

The Great Gatsby makes clear that Daisy has chosen Tom over Gatsby and would have done so even had Gatsby lived.  In the confrontation in Chapter VII, in which Gatsby tells Tom that Daisy has never loved Tom, that she loves Gatsby, Daisy first tries to stop him from doing so. Once he does, Tom responds by saying that even though he drifts from time to time, he loves Daisy and Daisy loves him. Daisy regards Tom with contempt, but then says she loved both Tom and Gatsby. There is a point at which she seems as though she is going to leave Tom. Gatsby tells Tom, "'She's leaving you'" (Fitzgerald 140),  Tom responds that this is "'nonsense'" (140), and Daisy says "'I am, though'" (140). She want to leave immediately, not able to stand the conflict.  But then Tom attacks, explaining the sources of Gatsby's money, in bed with organized crime, selling grain alcohol, and now some business venture so dangerous that Tom's sources won't say what it is. Gatsby gets a look on his face as though he had "'killed a man'" (142), and begins to defend himself to her, denying all.  But Nick says Gatsby's was now a "dead dream" (142), slipping away with the afternoon.  Even after she is saved by Gatsby's chivalry from a hit-and-run and manslaughter charge, Daisy remains with Tom, and they leave town well before Gatsby's body is discovered.  Gatsby dies waiting for a call that was never going to come. 

Daisy is a child of wealth and privilege, spoiled, careless, and shallow. Her world consists of people who are like her, and Tom is a part of that world.  Her sole foray into a different world in her youth, her fling with Gatsby, is not enough to make her leave that world.  Gatsby is a self-made man, unpolished, not having made any fortunes yet when first they meet.  He is a "nobody" socially.  Daisy's family intervenes somehow to stop her from seeing him off overseas, but once the war is over and she is a debutante, she is old enough to make her own decisions and chooses to marry Tom Buchanan.  When Gatsby returns, he is still a "nobody," and even worse, apparently a criminal.  She cannot see that Gatsby's love for her, his constant heart, and his utter decency as a human being (criminal activity notwithstanding) far outshine Tom's brutality, stupidity, and infidelity.  She is really not worthy of Gatsby's love, but she is worthy of Tom's, I suppose. And so for her, the choice is clear.   

How does Tony regard the owl that Ultima brings with her?

In Chapter One, Tony regards Ultima's owl as a special presence that has been sent to watch over the family.

Even though owls are said to portend evil, Tony feels that Ultima's owl will be different. He deeply believes that this very special owl which sits in a juniper tree outside Ultima's window will not be a bruja or a witch. When Tony's father makes no move to shoot the owl, Tony is further reassured...

In Chapter One, Tony regards Ultima's owl as a special presence that has been sent to watch over the family.

Even though owls are said to portend evil, Tony feels that Ultima's owl will be different. He deeply believes that this very special owl which sits in a juniper tree outside Ultima's window will not be a bruja or a witch. When Tony's father makes no move to shoot the owl, Tony is further reassured about his assessment of Ultima's owl.

So it is that when he sleeps on the first night of Ultima's stay, Tony dreams wonderful dreams about the owl. In his dream, he sees the owl as a good and protective presence. The owl takes both the Virgin of Guadalupe (the patron saint of the town) and the babies in Limbo to heaven.

In Roman Catholic theology, The Limbo of Infants is a theory about the fate of unbaptized babies. Accordingly, when babies die without the benefit of baptismal dispensation for original sin, they can theoretically end up in a state of Limbo. In Tony's dream, he sees Ultima's owl bringing all the infants in Limbo to heaven. Ultima's owl is a benign, rather than an oppressive or virulent, presence.

How does Of Mice and Men show that dreams help people stay hopeful about their lives?

The quest to fulfill dreams is an important theme in Of Mice and Men. Steinbeck develops the importance of dreams through the characters of George, Lennie and Candy. George dreams of having his own piece of land where he will be able to work for himself and not have to answer to a boss. He is conscious that he works hard yet has nothing to show for it. He tells Slim in chapter three,

The quest to fulfill dreams is an important theme in Of Mice and Men. Steinbeck develops the importance of dreams through the characters of George, Lennie and Candy. George dreams of having his own piece of land where he will be able to work for himself and not have to answer to a boss. He is conscious that he works hard yet has nothing to show for it. He tells Slim in chapter three,

"If I was bright, if I was even a little bit smart, I’d have my own little place, an’ I’d be bringin’ in my own crops, ‘stead of doin’ all the work and not getting what comes up outa the ground.”

This is George's dream and it keeps him hopeful that his life will one day change and he will gain the freedom which land will provide. Lennie shares George's dream but the simple-minded man focuses on only one aspect of the dream, to "tend rabbits." Lennie has an obsession with petting soft things so he is naturally intrigued by George's story about how they would raise alfalfa which would be fed to the rabbits. Whenever he gets a chance, Lennie begs George to tell the story of "how it's gonna be" when the two men go off to their own "little piece of land."

Candy too is overwhelmed by the dream. In chapter three, Candy's dog, who is old and decrepit, is shot by Carlson and Candy loses his best friend. For a time immediately following the shooting Candy is in deep depression until he overhears George tell Lennie about the land they hope to one day have. Candy offers to contribute $350 to the purchase and for a time it seems as though the dream may actually become a reality. Candy is positively giddy over the prospect of going with George and Lennie to "hoe in the garden even after I ain’t no good at it." George is also amazed that they might realize the longed for dream that had always seemed like an illusion. Steinbeck writes,

“We’ll do her,” he said. “We’ll fix up that little old place an’ we’ll go live there.” He sat down again. They all sat still, all bemused by the beauty of the thing, each mind was popped into the future when this lovely thing should come about.

The dream of the land keeps the men going. It's all they can think about and for a short time, Crooks is included, as the black man offers to also "come an' lend a hand." Unfortunately, Curley's wife threatens Crooks so he tells Candy he wouldn't want to go and was just kidding. Because he is black Crooks is ostracized and never able to realize his dreams. The other characters never realize the dream either, as the accidental killing of Curley's wife shatters the idea of the farm.  

Suggest an appeal for Tom Robinson's acquittal.

An appeal for Tom Robinson should include the fact that the case should never have been tried in court because of the lack of substantial evidence and credible witnesses. First, court hearings and trials should be held only if there is substantial proof that a crime was committed. Since Mr. Ewell didn't call a doctor to examine his daughter Mayella, there is no scientific or professional proof to show that she was actually raped. As...

An appeal for Tom Robinson should include the fact that the case should never have been tried in court because of the lack of substantial evidence and credible witnesses. First, court hearings and trials should be held only if there is substantial proof that a crime was committed. Since Mr. Ewell didn't call a doctor to examine his daughter Mayella, there is no scientific or professional proof to show that she was actually raped. As far as witnesses are concerned, the sheriff, Heck Tate, was called in after the fact; but he is neither a doctor nor a primary witness to the crime. Although his testimony is credible in regards to what happened after the alleged crime, he cannot account completely for what happened on the Ewell property during the event of the crime in question. The sheriff was simply the first to hear one side of the case. Furthermore, what one person says about another is not enough to prove that someone committed a crime and it's called hearsay. Hearsay is not admissible as evidence in any court of law. Bob and Mayella Ewell thought that all they had to do was call "wolf" and they would be believed. They were right. The people of Maycomb tried a man based in nothing more than hearsay and the prejudiced feelings of a controlling white population. Tom Robinson's case was based on hearsay rather than substantial proof or credible witnesses; therefore, the ruling in the case should be overturned.

What is the significance of the title of Achebe's "Civil Peace"?

The title of Chinua Achebe’s short story “Civil Peace” is especially interesting because it is used in an ironic sense. The story follows Jonathan Iwegbu as he collects the fragments of his life after the end of the Nigerian Civil War. The Nigerian Civil War, also known as the Biafran War, was a protracted conflict that resulted because a section of Nigeria attempted to secede and form its own country. The war leaves a tremendous...

The title of Chinua Achebe’s short story “Civil Peace” is especially interesting because it is used in an ironic sense. The story follows Jonathan Iwegbu as he collects the fragments of his life after the end of the Nigerian Civil War. The Nigerian Civil War, also known as the Biafran War, was a protracted conflict that resulted because a section of Nigeria attempted to secede and form its own country. The war leaves a tremendous amount of destruction in its wake, and Jonathan gathers up what he can to reestablish his life. The title of the story is ironic because even though the war has come to an end, the area is still chaotic and filled with strife. Indeed, a gang of robbers use the term “civil peace” when they rob Iwegbu and his family in the dead of night:

“Awrighto. Now make we talk business. We no be bad tief. We no like for make trouble. Trouble done finish. War done finish and all the katakata wey de for inside. No Civil War again. This time na Civil Peace. No be so?” (87).

Thus, Achebe uses the title ironically to highlight the violence still present in a post-war Nigeria.

How do I cite a website in my MLA formatted paper? And how do I put it in my MLA works cited page?

To create an entry for your Works Cited page, you will need to know a few key pieces of information. If any of this information cannot be found, it is acceptable to leave it out—there should be enough information from the rest of your citation in case your teacher wants to visit this resource. The format of your Works Cited entry should be as follows:

• Editor, author, or compiler name (if available). Name of Site...

To create an entry for your Works Cited page, you will need to know a few key pieces of information. If any of this information cannot be found, it is acceptable to leave it out—there should be enough information from the rest of your citation in case your teacher wants to visit this resource. The format of your Works Cited entry should be as follows:

• Editor, author, or compiler name (if available). Name of Site. Version number. Name of institution/organization affiliated with the site (sponsor or publisher), date of resource creation (if available). Medium of publication. Date of access.

Note the use of italics for the name of the website. Your actual Works Cited entry may be much shorter depending on the information available to you. This information comes from the Purdue OWL website's MLA style guide, so I will create a sample Works Cited entry to show you what it ought to look like when one cites a webpage.

• Tony Russel, et al. MLA Works Cited: Electronic Sources (Web Publications). Purdue Online Writing Lab, 6 July 2015. Web. 21 March 2016.

For an in-text citation from a webpage, put the first part of the corresponding Works Cited citation into parenthesis. (For my above example, this would be "Tony Russel, et al.") This citation should come directly after the material you have referenced. If you are using a quote, put your parenthetical citation directly after the quote. If you are paraphrasing, it can go at the end of the sentence or paragraph. When your citation comes at the end of a sentence, don't forget that the period should fall outside of the parenthesis.

You may also be interested in the website Citation Machine, which allows you to enter the necessary data for your citation and will format it for you. If you're not sure if you've formulated your citation properly, this is a good way to double-check until you get the hang of things.

What are some of the references to the hour, day, month, or year? Why does Fitzgerald include so many time details in this chapter in particular?

Many of these references show Gatsby really doesn't have a good sense of time or how it works, and this symbolism is illuminated in this particular chapter because it is the chapter in which he is reunited with Daisy.  In the first paragraph, Nick says that he arrives home at "two o'clock" in the morning and was afraid that his house was on fire because Gatsby had all of his house lights "blazing."  First, it is not really appropriate to have all one's lights on at two in the morning, especially when the light would affect one's neighbors.  Moreover, when Gatsby sees Nick, he suggests that they go to Coney Island, and Nick has to remind him it is "too late."  It's as though Gatsby truly does not realize there is such a thing as "too late," and this makes sense in terms of his thinking about Daisy and their reunion as well.  He does not realize there is a possibility it could be too late for he and Daisy to be together.

Further, the fact that he almost accidentally breaks Nick's clock by knocking it off the mantle seems to symbolize his wish for time to stand still, for nothing to have changed between him and Daisy.  In the moments after Gatsby and Daisy first see each other, Nick says, "the clock took this moment to tilt dangerously at the pressure of [Gatsby's] head, whereupon he turned and caught it with trembling fingers and set it back in place."  Time does not and cannot stand still, and Gatsby catching the clock seems to emphasize this fact.

In addition, Gatsby seems bad with time now, but he knows exactly how long it has been since he last saw Daisy: "five years next November."  It's as though that was when he lost his sense of time, and he's been unable to keep track of it since then.  The fact that it was "two minutes to four" and he was panicking that Daisy wasn't going to come (when she was invited to arrive at four o'clock) confirms this. 

Thus, time is emphasized in this chapter to show us just how badly Gatsby wants time to stand still so he and Daisy can pick up right where they left off, but the fact that he catches the clock he almost breaks emphasizes that time has not stood still.  Daisy has married, become a mother, and moved on, even though Gatsby has not.  He may be able to ignore time when he is the only one affected by his choices, but he cannot force Daisy to forget what has changed since the last time they were together. 

What is the mood and atmosphere of the story "Lamb to the Slaughter"?

To start, it should be said that despite the innocence of many of his successful children's works, Roald Dahl is notorious for crafting creepy, even horrifying short stories. As other Educators have pointed out, as the story contains dynamic characters and events, the overall mood changes several times. However, if there were a term to identify the overall mood of the story as a whole, it would probably be ominous or foreboding.

At the very beginning of the story, we see a woman waiting innocently for her husband to return from work. Yet even at this early stage, Dahl drops hints to the reader that something is amiss. Mary Maloney is not simply "peaceful," but "curiously peaceful." Already Dahl casts doubts about her true state, implying that we should be suspicious, "curious" about her seemingly calm disposition. Also, "Her mouth and her eyes, with their new calm look, seemed larger and darker than before." This depicts a rather unsettling change. Dahl chooses "larger" and "darker" to portray her features, as though her eyes have become like holes. 

When Mary Maloney's husband does come home, the narrator describes the reasons she adores her husband, one of which is that he doesn't complain about being tired. Then, immediately, her husband states: "Yes," he sighed. "I'm thoroughly exhausted." Again, something is not right here. The husband's actions stand in an unsettling contrast to the wife's dreamy, hazy thoughts. 

All these ominous clues in the text lead up to Mary Maloney's confrontation with her husband. Evidently, he tells her he is leaving her (rather callously), and she becomes shell-shocked at the news, moving about numbly. Then, brandishing a frozen leg of lamb, she murders him. Immediately afterward,

The violence of the crash, the noise, the small table overturning, helped to bring her out of the shock. She came out slowly, feeling cold and surprised, and she stood for a few minutes, looking at the body, still holding the piece of meat tightly with both hands.

Yet the creepiness, the tension is still not fully released. We wonder, what will she do? How will she cover it up? What will become of her unborn child?

Mary Maloney pulls herself together, attempting to cover up her grisly action with a veneer of cheer. She practices in the mirror: "That was better. Both the smile and the voice sounded better now." She then proceeds to have a perfectly pleasant and mundane conversation with a shopkeeper while her husband lays murdered by her own hand. The juxtaposition of the friendly chat and the murder is sinister.

Tension continues to build and release a bit, build and release a bit, as Mary "discovers" her dead husband, the police arrive, and the reader realizes the weapon is currently cooking in the oven when Jack Noonan says "Get the weapon, and you've got the murderer." We continue to have apprehension about exactly how this whole drama will play out. 

The unanswered questions and dramatic irony contribute to the foreboding atmosphere of the story right up until the end, when "in the other room, Mary Maloney began to laugh."

Why have so many democratic systems failed? What are the key differences that make or break a democratic system?

I’m not entirely certain that it is correct to suggest that “so many democratic systems failed,” especially when examined alongside competing forms of government, such as the communist totalitarian systems that had dominated much of the world throughout the 20th century but almost all of which collapsed during the 1989-1990 time frame (the Castro brothers’ Cuba and  the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua being two notable exceptions, and neither regime, along with the officially communist People’s Republic of China). In fact, democratic regimes have proven remarkably resilient across much of Europe and the Americas. It is correct, however, to note that some democratic systems have, or are failing, and it is worth pondering the reasons for these developments.

When democratic systems fail, it is usually due to one or more problems, chief among these loss of confidence in governing institutions among populations experiencing serious economic difficulties. Additionally, endemic corruption can erode confidence in governments and lead to their failure. Also, democratic systems fail when autocratic individuals succeed in exploiting open societies for their own benefit and, once in power, proceed to undermine democratic structures and replace them with more autocratic institutions. These reasons helped explain the rise of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party of Germany during the 1930s, a period when the Great Depression and Hitler and others’ political machinations succeeded in subverting the democratic processes then in place. Similarly, Venezuela’s fragile democratic system was unable to withstand the organized, militant assault on its institutions that was waged by the late dictator Hugo Chavez and his followers. Chavez was democratically elected, but, once in power, set about undermining democratic institutions and persecuting his political opponents. What resulted was a seriously-dysfunctional socialist system in which individual liberties have been under continuous assault.

As this is an ongoing phenomenon, we do have the luxury of current events to examine, and most of these involve Eastern Europe, specifically, the former satellites of the Soviet Union liberated with the fall of the Berlin Wall. With the exception of Belorus, a culturally and linguistically very close ally of Russia that remained allied to its former colonial power even after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, almost all of these countries adopted democratic forms of government. Today, however, due in no small part to the threat to their cultures and economies emanating from the enormous numbers of emigres and refugees from the Middle East that have migrated north since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011, nationalist parties in Hungary and Poland, to name just two, have emerged as major players in their countries’ respective political processes. These nationalist parties are popular due to their opposition to the waves of immigrants arriving within their borders, and their electoral success augurs ill for the future of democratic systems in those countries. (It is worth noting, in this regard, that the fragility of the newly-established democracy in the North America, the United States, felt sufficiently threatened that it passed the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which sought to strictly limit immigration to the United States. Today, that legislation continues to serve as a reminder of the perils of intolerance to the survival of democratic systems.)

The absence of protracted periods of peace and economic stability makes the survival of democratic systems particularly tenuous. It is very difficult to consolidate a democratic system in a country that has little or no history of democracy and that is perpetually threatened by outside powers. The Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have successfully established democratic systems, but the constant threat by nearby Russia to reimpose its control over these tiny, militarily-weak nations, which were once part of the Soviet Union, threatens to undermine their efforts at surviving as democracies. In Iraq, a democratic system established after the U.S. invasion that ousted the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein has failed due to incessant strife among competing tribes and Islamic sects, especially the persistent conflict between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, the latter of whom comprise a majority of Iraq’s population and the former of whom continue to resent their loss of power with Saddam’s, a fellow Sunni, removal from power.

In conclusion, there are a number of reasons why democratic systems fail. Historically, though, they are more resilient than one’s professor or teacher may have you believe.

What role does the Stage Manager play throughout Our Town?

The Stage Manager has the same kind of role that would be filled by a minor character who is the narrator of a short story or novel. His main function is to provide exposition. He introduces most of the other characters by their names and tells the audience something about them. One advantage of this rather unusual dramatic device is that the characters do not have to go through the usual rigamarole of addressing each other by their names so that the audience will know who they are. The characters are not forced to provide much in the way of exposition disguised as conversation. They just live their lives.

The Stage Manager differs from the typical minor-character narrator of a short story or novel in that he is omniscient. He not only knows all the people and all about their business, but he knows what is going to happen to them in the future. Here is an example. Joe Crowell, Jr. is delivering the morning paper, as everybody in the audience can see. It is early in Act I.

STAGE MANAGER
Want to tell you something about that boy Joe Crowell there. Joe was awful bright—graduated from high school, head of his class. So he got a scholarship to Massachusetts Tech. Graduated head of his class there, too. It was all wrote up in the Boston paper at the time. Goin' to be a great engineer, Joe was. But the war broke out and he died in France.—All that education for nothing.

The Stage Manager tells us that the day is May 7, 1901. Joe is still a kid. But the Stage Manager can tell us that he died in World War I, which America entered in 1917. His prescience has an uncanny effect. He is talking about the past, present and future all at the same time. The boy we are watching delivering his papers is already dead. Time is treated differently in Our Town. It seems as if past, present and future are all somehow the same.

The Stage Manager strikes us as being a small-town philosopher as well as a manager and narrator. He has the ability to move in and out of people's homes and even to listen to the dead men and women conversing at the town cemetery. In Act II we learn that his name is Mr. Morgan and he owns the town drugstore, where he makes ice-cream sodas for Emily Webb and George Gibbs. This is the present, but it is also the past. Emily and George will be married. Emily will die in 1913 and join the other dead townspeople at the cemetery. But she will return to Grover's Corners briefly in 1899 on a sentimental journey which proves to be a heartbreaking disappointment. It is easy to see why the Stage Manager, who knows everything about the future and remembers everything about the past, is needed to hold this play together. Thornton Wilder recklessly violates Aristotle's unities of time, place and action, but the audience does not have the slightest trouble following or understanding what is happening, thanks to the Stage Manager.

How has Chillingworth changed since Hester last saw him?

Chillingworth is several years older than the last time he and Hester were together, and when she sees him in the crowd, he is dressed in "a strange disarray of civilized and savage costume."  Probably due to his time with the Native Americans, he wears a combination of his own European attire and native garments.  Further, when they meet face to face in the jail, he "entered the room with the characteristic quietude of the...

Chillingworth is several years older than the last time he and Hester were together, and when she sees him in the crowd, he is dressed in "a strange disarray of civilized and savage costume."  Probably due to his time with the Native Americans, he wears a combination of his own European attire and native garments.  Further, when they meet face to face in the jail, he "entered the room with the characteristic quietude of the profession to which he announced himself as belonging."  He has told the jailer that he is a doctor, and the year that he's spent with the Native Americans has allowed him to become well-versed in the medicinal properties of herbs and plants. 

Moreover, Hester expects Chillingworth to be very angry and possibly attempt to harm herself or her child; however, he actually seems to want to help them, especially the baby, and takes some responsibility for his and Hester's inappropriate marriage.  He sees, now, that it was his "folly," as an older man with little to offer a young bride, to compel her family to allow him to marry her.  In other words, he seems somewhat less proud and a more compassionate than she expects, leading us to believe that these are changes from the man he used to be.  On the other hand, when he vows vengeance on the man who Hester had her affair with, she wonders if he is the "Black Man," or devil, because of the changes that seem to take place on his face and in his address.

Does international law treaty law diminish a nation's sovereignty?

This is a surprisingly deep question; it cuts to the core of what we mean by "sovereignty", and strongly overlaps with similar deep questions about personal autonomy.

Which nation is more free: The one that never has to cooperate with other nations, or the one that is free to enforce cooperation with other nations?

Which person is more free: The one who never has to obey any contract, or the one who is free to make contracts with others?

A great deal of ink has been spilled on this question.

My perspective on this matter comes from being a cognitive economist, and that pushes me pretty strongly toward saying that the right to contract is the form of autonomy worth protecting. Human beings often find themselves in coordination problems, where what I want to do depends strongly on what I expect you to do---and vice versa. By establishing contracts, we can coordinate our actions and solve such problems, achieving a better outcome for everyone. (Such conflicts can even occur within a person---the conflict between the me now that wants to eat the cookie and the me later that doesn't want to have eaten so much sugar. We often make "deals" with ourselves to resolve these conflicts---"Okay, just one cookie today, but none tomorrow." Are such deals enforceable? Your mileage may vary.)

There are some extreme examples where we might want to limit the enforceability of contracts---for example, we don't allow people to sell themselves into slavery, because that would mean giving people the "freedom" to give up all their future freedom. But for the most part, personal autonomy is maximized by letting people make and enforce contracts.

And along similar lines, if national sovereignty is to be worthwhile, it must be in a form that allows nations to make contracts with one another. International cooperation is vital to the success of all nations---especially in an age of intercontinental nuclear weapons. It would impose more on the freedom of a nation's people to advance their common interest to say that they can never make binding agreements with other nations.

National sovereignty also poses another complication, which is that nations are not natural entities. Human individuals exist on their own, and while we do depend on one another, each of us makes our decisions as a meaningfully autonomous agent. But nations are not like this; they are social constructions that may be built out of the interests of millions of people. It is actually quite possible for a nation to not have any coherent desires or interests--because there is so much conflict within it that no single desire can attain a clear majority. In a case where that happens, it's honestly not clear what national sovereignty means at all.

What is the significance of an IQ score of 68 in Flowers for Algernon?

It shows that Charlie's intelligence is very, very low. Let's see why:

Toward the very beginning of the story, long before Charlie has his operation to raise his intelligence, we find out that he has an IQ score of 68 but also that he's motivated to learn:

"Dr Strauss said I had something that was very good. He said I had a good motor-vation. I never even knew I had that. I felt proud when he said that not every body with an eye-q of 68 had that thing. I dont know what it is or where I got it..."

Scientists disagree vociferously about whether or not IQ tests are valid measures of someone's intelligence, but all we need is some basic information to help understand Charlie's score of 68 and how it relates to the story.

IQ stands for "intelligence quotient" and is a measure of someone's general intelligence. The doctors in the story determined Charlie's IQ by giving him a test and calculating the results.

Please take a look at this diagram as you read through the explanation of it below.

Someone with perfectly average intelligence has an IQ score of 100. And the great majority of people (68% of the population) have a score hovering around that figure, specifically between 85 and 115. If your score falls in that range, we'd say you're of average intelligence.

A significant chunk of people (14% of the population) have scores between 70 and 85, so these are folks you'd call "below average" in intelligence.

Likewise, a significant chunk of people (14% of the population) have scores between 115 and 130, so these are the folks you'd call "above average" in intelligence.

Then, off to one end of the spectrum is a small group of extremely intelligent people with a score over 130 (about 2% of the population) and, likewise on the other end, there are the people we'd say are extremely lacking in intelligence with a score below 70 (again, just about 2% of the population.)

The fact that Charlie's score is below 70, then, reveals that his intelligence is very, very low. It's a significant disability for him. 

What is the primary center of tension in the encounter between John Proctor and Mary Warren? Why does Mary begin to challenge Proctor's...

In Act Two, when Mary Warren returns home to the Proctors' house, the primary reason for the tension between John and Mary is that he had forbidden her to go into Salem.  She had disobeyed his order, as well as his wife's, and gone to town anyway.  As Elizabeth explains, Mary Warren is no longer like a mouse; "she raises up her chin like the daughter of a prince and says [...], 'I must go...

In Act Two, when Mary Warren returns home to the Proctors' house, the primary reason for the tension between John and Mary is that he had forbidden her to go into Salem.  She had disobeyed his order, as well as his wife's, and gone to town anyway.  As Elizabeth explains, Mary Warren is no longer like a mouse; "she raises up her chin like the daughter of a prince and says [...], 'I must go to Salem, Good Proctor; I am an official of the court!'"  Thus, Mary now feels as though she can defy Proctor's authority because she believes that she is answering to a higher authority, a more important authority than her employer: the court.  Mary explains that, although there were fourteen accused before, there are now thirty-nine accused, and she is "amazed" that John is unable to see "what weighty work [they] do" in the courts. 

This interaction reveals how dramatically and quickly the court's authority has increased as well as the importance it places on the words of the girls.  Elizabeth explains that judges have been brought in from Boston, and presiding over all is the Deputy Governor of the colony.  The court's authority is so far-reaching that it seems to overtake logic and reason, and the (lying) girls have gained a measure of this authority for themselves. 

What literary devices, if any, are used in Pride and Prejudice?

Pride and Prejudice is famous for its use of irony. In irony, the intended or literal meaning of words is different from their actual meaning. Pride and Prejudice's first line is often cited as the textbook example of an ironic utterance: 

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.

What the statement really means is that single women (and their families) are desperately in want of a husband of good fortune.

The irony that begins with the novel's first sentence extends through the entire work as Elizabeth's prejudice against Darcy leads her to misread the world around her, seeing him as a blackguard and the wicked Wickham as wronged by Darcy.

The novel also uses aphorism, or concise statements that contain universal truths, such as when Charlotte says,

There are very few of us who have heart enough to be really in love without encouragement. In nine cases out of ten a woman should show more affection than she feels.

These two devices, irony and aphorism, are characteristic of eighteenth-century prose, often used by writers Austen admired, such as Samuel Johnson. However, Austen's development of complex characterization in her main characters anticipates the development of the novel in the nineteenth century away from satire and towards realism. For example, Darcy, while the hero of the novel, has flaws that he himself admits, such as pride, and Elizabeth, though one of the most charming heroines in all of English literature, jumps to conclusions and has a temper. 

What did Leslie suggest for her and Jess to have all to themselves?

The answer to this question is very important to the plot! Let's look in Chapter 4, titled "Rulers of Terabithia," when Leslie and Jess are playing together outside, near the creek bed:

"Do you know what we need?" Leslie called to him. Intoxicated as he was with the heavens, he couldn't imagine needing anything on earth.

"We need a place," she said, "just for us. It would be so secret that we would never tell...

The answer to this question is very important to the plot! Let's look in Chapter 4, titled "Rulers of Terabithia," when Leslie and Jess are playing together outside, near the creek bed:

"Do you know what we need?" Leslie called to him. Intoxicated as he was with the heavens, he couldn't imagine needing anything on earth.

"We need a place," she said, "just for us. It would be so secret that we would never tell anyone in the whole world about it." Jess came swinging back and dragged his feet to stop. She lowered her voice almost to a whisper. "It might be a whole secret country," she continued, "and you and I would be the rulers of it."

Leslie is saying that they should have their own secret imaginary country, outside somewhere, where just the two of them could hang out together, play, and come up with all kinds of adventures. They'll imagine that they're the rulers of this place, and it'll belong to them.

So you can imagine how the promise of this fascinating place stirs something within Jess! They walk a little further together and decide on a place to build their imaginary country. It's beautiful, the perfect spot to play this imaginative game together:

"...here where the dogwood and redwood played hide and seek between the oaks and evergreens, and the sun flung itself in golden streams through the trees to splash warmly at their feet."

Like you might guess from the title of this chapter, and from the title of the whole book, they name their secret kingdom "Terabithia."

When you consider how Jess often feels crowded at home with all those sisters, like he has no privacy, you can imagine how tantalizing the idea of a secret kingdom is to him. And, he's captivated by the idea of being in charge of something; he's always getting bossed around at home and, to some extent, at school also. Since he's already so fascinated by his new friend Leslie and her incredible imagination, we know that this Terabithia will become a special place for their friendship and for Jess's development as a person to unfold.

In "The Lady or the Tiger" why does the princess believe that her lover and the lady behind the door love each other?

Like the king, Hurst describes the princess as "semi-barbaric" and even adds that she was "hot blooded." These terms suggest that the princess could also be quite jealous and "she had seen or imagined that she had seen" her lover and the lady looking at each other and even stopping to share a brief word. The lady is described as "one of the fairest and loveliest of the damsels of the court" and so the...

Like the king, Hurst describes the princess as "semi-barbaric" and even adds that she was "hot blooded." These terms suggest that the princess could also be quite jealous and "she had seen or imagined that she had seen" her lover and the lady looking at each other and even stopping to share a brief word. The lady is described as "one of the fairest and loveliest of the damsels of the court" and so the princess's jealousy is stoked, not only by the fact that she perceives the lady and her lover have some sort of relationship, but also that the lady is beautiful and thus attractive to her lover. She could certainly imagine her lover and the lady being secretly in love. While she has absolutely no evidence of an affair between the two, the princess may be considered naturally suspicious due to her "semi-barbaric" nature. She can think only of how much she is in love and is hyper-sensitive to anyone who might pose a threat to her love for the man. This is, after all, a fairytale kingdom and so possible that all sorts of intrigue may play itself out in the king's court.

What are the features of different types of meetings?

The "type" of meeting depends on (a) the purpose of the meeting, and (b) the level of formality of the meeting.  We will define both of these in more detail.

Meeting purpose is roughly defined as the desired outcome or result of the meeting, the "why" of the meeting.  The fact that there is a specific desired purpose on the part of the initiator of the meeting is what makes it a "meeting" in the first place.  This differentiates it from the various other communication which goes on in a business environment.

The attached reference gives a handy short list of typical meeting purposes (informational, decision-making, etc.).  The common thread to these, and any other ways of categorizing meetings, is the degree to which the goal is increasing the participants' knowledge versus motivating or enabling specific action.

The formality of the meeting is defined by the extent to which the features of the meeting are predefined and inflexible.  These features are:

• participant list ("who")


• time allotted ("when")


• venue ("where")


• rules governing interaction ("how")

Let's look at a couple examples to integrate all of this and define the range of meetings.  At one end is the manager who goes over to her employees workstation area impromptu (no time allotment or schedule) to convey something she was just alerted to by her manager (knowledge increase purpose).  The employees stand next to their cubicles (venue), and ask questions as they occur to them during their manager's presentation (no explicit rules on interaction).  One of the employees comes back to their cubicle from the restroom midway through the talk, and employees of another adjacent unit listen in, just in case there is something important being talked about (no defined participant list).

At the other end is the monthly Board of Directors Meeting.  Starting time and allotted time are clearly defined in the invitation memo.  Participants are limited to those receiving the memo, and some members are identified as "required" indicating negative consequences for failure to attend.  The venue is the Executive Conference Room, which provides for restricted access, prevents outside parties from hearing the proceedings, and has facilities for media as well as accommodating the participants' physical needs (refreshments, snacks).  This is a decision-making meeting, and formal Rules of Order govern who may speak, at what point, and for how long.  Decisions are presented in the form of motions which must be proposed, "seconded", and then voted on.

What is the doleful sight of which Mary Rownlandson writes?

Mary Rowlandson, a 17th-century Massachusetts colonist, became entangled in King Philip's War, which was a war between Native Americans and British colonists. She, along with her children, was captured by Native Americans and held prisoner for ransom. Thankfully, her life was preserved; however, many of her family members and friends were killed. She documented the ordeal in what is considered one of the first great "captivity narratives."

Early in A Narrative of the Captivity and...

Mary Rowlandson, a 17th-century Massachusetts colonist, became entangled in King Philip's War, which was a war between Native Americans and British colonists. She, along with her children, was captured by Native Americans and held prisoner for ransom. Thankfully, her life was preserved; however, many of her family members and friends were killed. She documented the ordeal in what is considered one of the first great "captivity narratives."

Early in A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson, the author refers to a "doleful sight that now was to behold at this house!" The word "doleful" means "mournful," so by this she meant that her family's house was about to witness the tragic events depicted in her captivity narrative. As she relates:

Of thirty-seven persons who were in this one house, none escaped either present death, or a bitter captivity, save only one, who might say as he, "And I only am escaped alone to tell the News" (Job 1.15). 

She then describes the "doleful sight."

There were twelve killed, some shot, some stabbed with their spears, some knocked down with their hatchets....There was one who was chopped into the head with a hatchet, and stripped naked, and yet was crawling up and down. It is a solemn sight to see so many Christians lying in their blood[.]

This scene was indeed tragic! Nevertheless, Rowlandson found hope in this doleful situation, for:

[T]he Lord by His almighty power preserved a number of us from death, for there were twenty-four of us taken alive and carried captive.

Why does Macbeth not react to the death of Lady Macbeth badly?

These two people were once very close, but they have been driven apart by their guilt, disillusionment, and growing misery. Near the end of the play they do not even appear together in the same scene. She is alone in one part of the castle, and he is alone in another part. Shakespeare does not want to make the audience feel that they have been deserted by everyone else "but at least they still have each other." They do not still have each other. Lady Macbeth has apparently lost her mind and isn't even aware of her husband's existence except as someone who haunts her memory of the past. When she says, "Hell is murky," she means just that. She thinks she is in hell already. "Hell is murky" is a good description. We would expect the place to be murky because it is so deep underground.

Macbeth, it would seem, does not love this woman anymore and does not want to spend any time with her. He has sent for a doctor to take care of her and just wants to leave her in the doctor's hands. Among Macbeth's reasons for no longer loving his wife is probably the fact that he blames her for encouraging him to kill King Duncan. We know that he would not have gone through with the murder without her adamant insistence. She thought it would be easy. He knew there would be endless repercussions, but he let himself listen to her. Now he feels totally depressed. He believes they are both doomed. It doesn't matter whether she dies first or he does. Life is meaningless. 

She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.         V.5

A long time has passed since Macbeth became king. Shakespeare does not specify the exact amount of time, but it must have been something like ten or fifteen years. In that time neither Macbeth nor his wife has experienced any of the pleasures they expected to attain by becoming the reigning monarchs. This is because they both know everybody hates them. Macbeth expresses the general feeling when he says:

I have lived long enough. My way of life
Is fall'n into the sear, the yellow leaf,
And that which should accompany old age,
As honor, love, obedience, troops of friends,
I must not look to have; but, in their stead,
Curses, not loud but deep, mouth-honor, breath,
Which the poor heart would fain deny and dare not.    V.3

Also they apparently have not been able to conceive a child. The kingdom will pass down to others. Banquo's heirs may eventually inherit the throne as the witches promised. Macbeth does not even show surprise at his wife's death. Everything is going badly for him. He expects nothing but bad news. When he hears the women shrieking because the Queen has just died, he says to himself:

I have almost forgot the taste of fears:
The time has been, my senses would have cool'd
To hear a night-shriek, and my fell of hair
Would at a dismal treatise rouse and stir
As life were in't: I have supp'd full with horrors;
Direness, familiar to my slaughterous thoughts,
Cannot once start me.             V.5

What is the theme of "Papa who Wakes up Tired in the Dark” in The House on Mango Street?

In "Papa Wakes up Tired in the Dark," a chapter in Sandra Cisneros's House on Mango Street, Papa is strangely sitting on Esperanza's bed one morning. He tells her that "Your abuelito [grandfather] is dead." The father cries, which is very rare for him. Normally, the father has already left by that point of the morning, as he is so hardworking and has "thick hands and thick shoes," meaning that his hands and feet...

In "Papa Wakes up Tired in the Dark," a chapter in Sandra Cisneros's House on Mango Street, Papa is strangely sitting on Esperanza's bed one morning. He tells her that "Your abuelito [grandfather] is dead." The father cries, which is very rare for him. Normally, the father has already left by that point of the morning, as he is so hardworking and has "thick hands and thick shoes," meaning that his hands and feet are worn and bloated from so much hard work. In the end of the chapter, Esperanza hugs her father and thinks about how upset she would be if he died. 

The themes of this chapter are Esperanza's connection to her father and her understanding of the loss he is experiencing after his father's death. The chapter also emphasizes her role in supporting the family when her father is grieving and when he has to go to Mexico for the funeral, and the division of the family across the U.S.-Mexican border. 

What is the relevance of the Sandy's story about the soothsayer in The Westing Game?

The tale of the soothsayer who died laughing is Sandy’s way of telling Turtle that he is Westing.

There are many hints that Sandy McSouthers is actually Sam Westing.  First of all, his names are all directions.  He is Northrup, McSouthers, Eastman, and Westing.  As McSouthers, he has contact with the players of the game and tells Turtle the story about the soothsayer who predicted his own death as a way of telling her what...

The tale of the soothsayer who died laughing is Sandy’s way of telling Turtle that he is Westing.

There are many hints that Sandy McSouthers is actually Sam Westing.  First of all, his names are all directions.  He is Northrup, McSouthers, Eastman, and Westing.  As McSouthers, he has contact with the players of the game and tells Turtle the story about the soothsayer who predicted his own death as a way of telling her what is really happening.

That day came, and the soothsayer waited to die and waited some more, but nothing happened. He was so surprised and so happy to be alive that he laughed and laughed. Then, at one minute to midnight, he suddenly died. He died laughing. (Ch. 15)

Turtle tells Sandy that this is very profound.  She says nothing else.  Turtle is a smart little girl.  Sandy obviously knows that.  The purpose of the Westing Game is not just to get to know the heirs, but to have fun.  He is laughing at them.  He is not really dead at all.  He is watching them all the time.

By the time of the soothsayer story, Sandy is basically admitting to Turtle that he is messing with everyone.  She is the one who wins the game.

He was smiling. He wasn’t angry with her, he was smiling.

"Hi, Sandy,” Turtle said. “I won!” (Ch. 27)

Westing created an interesting game, got to know his heirs and the people in his life, and spent some diverting months. He showed Turtle that he had a sense of humor, even if no one else figured it out.  From then on, Turtle and Westing were very close.  She was his heir, and carried on his legacy of being very successful and having a good sense of humor.  Westing may not have died laughing, but he died happy.

Are truth and justice themes in The Journey to the West?

Truth and justice are very important themes in this book. In fact, one could make the argument that they are the central themes of the book. The titular journey can be seen as an archetypal quest for truth, and the paths that each character takes can be seen as the embodiment of justice.

The scriptures that the main characters are traveling to get literally and figuratively represent truth. The scriptures contain some of the holiest...

Truth and justice are very important themes in this book. In fact, one could make the argument that they are the central themes of the book. The titular journey can be seen as an archetypal quest for truth, and the paths that each character takes can be seen as the embodiment of justice.

The scriptures that the main characters are traveling to get literally and figuratively represent truth. The scriptures contain some of the holiest teachings of the Buddhist faith, and adherents believe they are literally true. Figuratively, the represent reaching true happiness and turning away from hedonism and self-absorption.

The theme of justice is most obvious in the premise of the story. All of the main characters have committed one crime or another, and their punishment is to go on an arduous journey to obtain the sutras. Justice is also evident in a positive manner when each character is awarded a post in heaven after successfully completely the quest. 

What are some characteristics that describe Scout in To Kill a Mockingbird?

Jean Louise "Scout" Finch is the narrator of the novel To Kill a Mockingbird and she displays numerous character traits which make her unique, entertaining, and memorable. Scout is a "tomboy" who enjoys playing with her brother and best friend, Dill. She wears overalls and absolutely despises acting feminine. Scout has a short temper and is involved in several fights throughout the novel. Despite being hot-headed, Scout has a good heartand is...

Jean Louise "Scout" Finch is the narrator of the novel To Kill a Mockingbird and she displays numerous character traits which make her unique, entertaining, and memorable. Scout is a "tomboy" who enjoys playing with her brother and best friend, Dill. She wears overalls and absolutely despises acting feminine. Scout has a short temper and is involved in several fights throughout the novel. Despite being hot-headed, Scout has a good heart and is a morally upright character like her father. She tries her best to follow Atticus' instructions and views every individual equally, regardless of race or class. Since Scout is very young, she is naive about the world around her. As the novel progresses, Scout matures and gains perspective on Maycomb's society. Scout also has an affinity for reading and writing. Scout feels most comfortable on her father's lap while they read together. She even gets into trouble on her first day of school for having the ability to read and write. Scout is also a curious person. She is continually asking Atticus, Calpurnia, and Jem questions concerning comments that she hears or events that she witnesses throughout the novel.

Explain what "one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience" means in To Kill a Mockingbird.

Atticus means that he believes that he should help Tom Robinson and he will not let anyone tell him differently.

Atticus’s children are tired of people insulting him for defending Tom Robinson.  Scout got in fights with her classmate and cousin, and Jem destroyed Mrs. Dubose’s flowers for it.  They think that perhaps Atticus is the one in the wrong.  He explains to them why he must take it.

This case, Tom Robinson’s case, is...

Atticus means that he believes that he should help Tom Robinson and he will not let anyone tell him differently.

Atticus’s children are tired of people insulting him for defending Tom Robinson.  Scout got in fights with her classmate and cousin, and Jem destroyed Mrs. Dubose’s flowers for it.  They think that perhaps Atticus is the one in the wrong.  He explains to them why he must take it.

This case, Tom Robinson’s case, is something that goes to the essence of a man’s conscience—Scout, I couldn’t go to church and worship God if I didn’t try to help that man.”

“Atticus, you must be wrong…”

“How’s that?”

“Well, most folks seem to think they’re right and you’re wrong…” (Ch. 11)

Atticus tells his children that he will follow his own conscience because he believes that he is doing the right thing in defending Tom Robinson.  Atticus was appointed by Judge Taylor, but he also believes in what he is doing.  Tom Robinson deserves a good defense, black or white.

In his closing arguments during the trial, Atticus explains that the justice system is supposed to be colorblind.  The rest of society might be racist, but the courtroom is supposed to exist in a vacuum of facts.  In practice, this does not always work out, but Atticus reminds the jury of it.

“But there is one way in this country in which all men are created equal—there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of an Einstein, and the ignorant man the equal of any college president. That institution, gentlemen, is a court….” (Ch. 20)

The jury does convict Tom Robinson after all of that, but Atticus wins a victory in that the jury actually deliberates.  This means that he got through the thick layer of racism to make them think about what they were doing and question it.  The jury convicted Tom Robinson that time, but maybe next time they wouldn’t.  Each man should be ruled by his own conscience, not social norms.

The pause created by the dash in line 2 emphasizes what?

Dickinson's prolific use of the dash always raises questions for the reader. What do we make of them? Aside from giving her poems a major mark of distinction, and aside from expressing sudden pauses and jamming phrases together, we know these dashes often add intense emotional tension to the ideas being expressed.

To examine that particular dash at the end of the second line, let's look at it in the context of the whole stanza:

...

Dickinson's prolific use of the dash always raises questions for the reader. What do we make of them? Aside from giving her poems a major mark of distinction, and aside from expressing sudden pauses and jamming phrases together, we know these dashes often add intense emotional tension to the ideas being expressed.

To examine that particular dash at the end of the second line, let's look at it in the context of the whole stanza:

"A Bird came down the Walk—
He did not know I saw—
He bit an Angleworm in halves
And ate the fellow, raw,"

Here, that dash seems to force us to pause right at a critical moment. The speaker is watching the bird, waiting to see what happens--enter the dash, where we hold our breath, too, waiting to see-- and in the next instant, the bird eats the worm.

So, forcing us to pause and consider gives more weight and drama to the action that occurs directly after the dash, namely, the bird devouring the worm. It makes us consider that action a bit more than we might without the dash. That tension calls attention to the viciousness of the bird's actions: he's not just eating the worm but is biting him in half and then eating him raw. And, the dash also calls attention to what came immediately before it, so we're particularly aware that the speaker is watching this feral scene like a spy, unknown to the bird.

In short, the dash adds tension to that moment and accentuates the tenuous relationship between the person observing the action (the speaker) and the one performing the action (the bird).

In To Kill a Mockingbird, what are some reasons why Jem and Scout don't want to disappoint their father?

It's not easy having the most respectable, upstanding man in the county as a father. It makes it harder to be a difficult child because disappointing a man like Atticus is worse than getting a licking. However, for Jem, it's the same thing. He's never received a beating or a spanking from Atticus, and as he explains it to Scout, he never wants to be a candidate for one. On the night that the children go over to the Radley's backyard, Jem loses his pants when they are caught in the fence during the escape. After everyone goes to sleep, Jem decides to go back for his pants so he won't have to face his father without them in the morning. Scout begs him not to go, but he says the following:

"I--it's like this, Scout. . . Atticus ain't ever whipped me since I can remember. I wanta keep it that way. . . I just wanta keep it that way Scout. We shouldn'a done that tonight" (56).

The above passage demonstrates Jem's regret for what he did that night. Atticus had told them to stay away from the Radley house and Jem knew he blatantly disregarded his father's commands--and he suffered for it, too. For Scout, she's a daddy's girl and tries her best to obey him. After defending his honor with cousin Francis, she overhears Atticus discuss his daughter with Uncle Jack as follows:

"Bad language is a stage all children go through, and it dies with time when they learn they're not attracting attention with it. Hotheadedness isn't. Scout's got to learn to keep her head and learn soon, with what's in store for her these next few months. She's coming along, though. Jem's getting older and she follows his example a good bit now. All she needs is assistance sometimes" (87-88).

Who would want to disappoint such an understanding father as shown in the passage above? Atticus is intelligent, patient, and long-suffering; so if there ever came a time that one of his children disappointed him to no end, that would be a dreadful day.

Miss Maudie probably says it best though--about Atticus. She knows him probably better than the kids because she's known him longer and understands him better. And even if the kids can't say it with words, they can sure feel what Miss Maudie says about Atticus's character that would make anyone never want to disappoint him. Miss Maudie explains how important Atticus is the day after the trial:

"We're the safest folks in the world. . . We're so rarely called on to be Christians, but when we are, we've got men like Atticus to go for us" (215).

With a neighbor saying such respectful things about one's father like that, it would certainly cause some significant guilt if one of his children were caught disappointing him. Atticus is not only a good father and man, but he's respected by the community as well--even if some of them weren't so respectful during the Tom Robinson trial. The point is, as Scout puts it, "Atticus don't ever do anything to Jem and me in the house that he don't do in the yard" (46). He's an honorable man who should be respected, not disappointed by his children.

When might taking children like Helen out of their familiar environment be a good way to help them? Why is this a difficult thing to do and what...

Annie Sullivan saw that Helen's parents established almost no boundaries for her.  They allowed her to eat food off their plates at mealtimes, run around the house whenever she wanted, and hit people when she was angry.  Annie decided to take Helen out of this environment and move her to the "garden house," where the child would be given boundaries and expectations.

Many children flourish under boundaries and expectations.  If they are not given them,...

Annie Sullivan saw that Helen's parents established almost no boundaries for her.  They allowed her to eat food off their plates at mealtimes, run around the house whenever she wanted, and hit people when she was angry.  Annie decided to take Helen out of this environment and move her to the "garden house," where the child would be given boundaries and expectations.

Many children flourish under boundaries and expectations.  If they are not given them, they may become undisciplined or even selfish.  Removing a child from their normal environment can be challenging, even if done temporarily.  Parents may oppose this idea, which Helen's parents did initially.  They may want to keep their children nearby and under their care.  Children may not want to leave the comfort and familiarity of their homes.  Taking children out of their familiar environment could be risky in that they might not respond well to a sudden change of expectations.  It could be difficult to adjust to new boundaries.  They may become homesick.

Sometimes children with extreme behaviors are sent to special schools.  In those schools, structure and discipline become the norm.

In "The Kite Runner," if Hassan was the illegitimate son of Baba, then who was Ali?

In the novel, Hassan was the result of Sanaubar (Ali's wife) and Baba's adulterous relationship. Since Sanaubar was already Ali's wife at the time Hassan was born, all the parties involved simply continued with their lives as if the affair never happened. This was presumably done to protect Baba's position in his Pashtun/Sunni Muslim community. After all, Sanaubar was a Hazara (like her husband, Ali), and Hazaras were Shia Muslims; it would have been unthinkable...

In the novel, Hassan was the result of Sanaubar (Ali's wife) and Baba's adulterous relationship. Since Sanaubar was already Ali's wife at the time Hassan was born, all the parties involved simply continued with their lives as if the affair never happened. This was presumably done to protect Baba's position in his Pashtun/Sunni Muslim community. After all, Sanaubar was a Hazara (like her husband, Ali), and Hazaras were Shia Muslims; it would have been unthinkable for a man of Baba's position to admit to an affair with Sanaubar, a member of a hated sect.

After Sanaubar left Ali, he continued to raise Hassan as his own son. In the middle of the novel, we learn Hassan's true paternal heritage from the conversation between Rahim Khan and Amir. Rahim Khan confessed to Amir that Ali had always been sterile and that Hassan was fathered by Baba. Amir's reaction was explosive:

"You  bastards,"  I  muttered.  Stood  up.  "You  goddamn  bastards!"  I   screamed.  "All  of  you,  you  bunch  of  lying  goddamn bastards!"

"How  could  you  hide  this  from  me?  From  him?"  I  bellowed.

"Please  think,  Amir  jan.  It  was  a  shameful  situation. People  would talk.  All  that  a  man  had  back  then,  all  that  he  was,  was  his  honor,  his  name,  and  if  people  talked...  We  couldn't  tell  anyone,  surely  you  can  see  that."  He  reached  for  me,  but  I  shed  his  hand.  Headed  for  the door.

After he learned the truth about Hassan's parentage, Amir felt even more beholden to Hassan. He realized that both he and his father betrayed Hassan in their own ways. This terrible knowledge led Amir to fight for Sohrab's freedom as a form of redemption.

How do sociologists conduct research?

Sociology is the study of human social behavior and the implications of these behaviors. For example, the ways in which societies are organized and who may benefit or be devalued in such structures.

In order to identify patterns or cause-effect relationships in human social behavior, sociologists conduct research which considers both the quantitative (empirical, measurable) and qualitative (felt, experienced) aspects of behavior. Much of social theory is developed around the quantitative but uses qualitative factors...

Sociology is the study of human social behavior and the implications of these behaviors. For example, the ways in which societies are organized and who may benefit or be devalued in such structures.

In order to identify patterns or cause-effect relationships in human social behavior, sociologists conduct research which considers both the quantitative (empirical, measurable) and qualitative (felt, experienced) aspects of behavior. Much of social theory is developed around the quantitative but uses qualitative factors to explain why certain patterns emerge. Sociologists may conduct their research through surveys, interviews, direct observation, or participant observation. Both surveys and interviews allow participants in the research to self-report or explain their experience. Participant observation may also involve some explanation from the insider perspective, but is primarily for the purpose of the sociologist to get a feel for that insider perspective. On the other hand, direct observation maintains some distance between the sociologist and their group or individual of study. Each method has its own merits and drawbacks, so a combination of methods allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the subject material. Sociologists may also draw from already existing material like historical documents, previously completed surveys, or studies which have already been published on relevant subjects.

Much like other forms of research, sociologists begin by developing a hypothesis, collecting data to analyze, and either proving, disproving, or refining their initial hypothesis.

In what ways did the Spanish-American War reunify the nation post-war? Like a common enemy?

The Spanish-American War started off as an exercise in yellow journalism.  Spain had a hard time controlling Cuba and Puerto Rico and had to use internment camps in order to fight the guerrillas there.  America even put pressure to control the independence fighters as they had a tendency to destroy American sugar plantations as well.  William Randolph Hearst, owner of The New York Journal, sent famous Western artist Frederic Remington to Cuba in order to...

The Spanish-American War started off as an exercise in yellow journalism.  Spain had a hard time controlling Cuba and Puerto Rico and had to use internment camps in order to fight the guerrillas there.  America even put pressure to control the independence fighters as they had a tendency to destroy American sugar plantations as well.  William Randolph Hearst, owner of The New York Journal, sent famous Western artist Frederic Remington to Cuba in order to draw accurate depictions of the war.  When Remington cabled back that he could not find a major conflict, Hearst replied that he was to supply the pictures, and let Hearst supply the war.  In the press, the Spanish, under General Weyler, tortured the poor Cuban rebels and even raped women and injured innocent children.  One caption under a pro-war political cartoon was "Does our flag protect women?" and it showed a woman being protected by an American soldier.  Americans were already in an outrage over these made-up atrocities when the American battleship Maine exploded in Havana harbor, killing all of its crew.  The press later blamed this on a Spanish "torpedo" which in modern times was really a mine, and Americans all over the country clamored for war.  Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans in Congress found something they could agree on, and in 1898 declared war on Spain.  One interesting footnote is that former Confederate cavalry general Joseph Wheeler led American soldiers at San Juan Hill.  

What defines treason against the United States?

Article III of the US Constitution specifically defines treason as a citizen either waging a war against the US or aiding an enemy who is waging a war against the nation. John Brown, for example, was convicted of treason in 1859 for attempting to organize an armed revolt against the state of Virginia in opposition to slavery. In this case, Brown was convicted of treason because he was basically waging a war against the government....

Article III of the US Constitution specifically defines treason as a citizen either waging a war against the US or aiding an enemy who is waging a war against the nation. John Brown, for example, was convicted of treason in 1859 for attempting to organize an armed revolt against the state of Virginia in opposition to slavery. In this case, Brown was convicted of treason because he was basically waging a war against the government. Another good example is Benedict Arnold who attempted to surrender West Point to the British during the Revolutionary War.

The authors of the Constitution were aware of the ways in which laws can be manipulated and broadly interpreted, which is why treason has very specific criteria: the person is either attempting to wage a war against their government or helping the enemy during wartime. The case of John Brown, for example, was considered treason because he was actively trying to start a war with the state of Virgina. Benedict Arnold, on the other hand, was an American actively supporting the British effort during the Revolutionary War.

Because few Americans have ever tried to start a war with their own country, very few people have been convicted of treason on those grounds. As for the other criterion (aiding an enemy), it's important to know that this only applies during wartime. For instance, if a person were to give or sell classified American military information to Russia tomorrow, they couldn't be convicted of treason because the US isn't actively engaged in a war with Russia. They could, however, be charged with sedition or espionage, which is covered under a different set of laws. Moreover, in order for someone to be convicted of treason there must be at least two witnesses to the crime.

What are three talking points that provide information about how humor heals?

Evidence supports the use of humor in healing because it has the ability to provide a growth in meaningful relationships, and an increase in mental and physical health benefits. Three talking points could address these issues: mental health benefits, physical health benefits, and increasing the development of relationships that cultivate humor. 

Belief that humor aids the healing process comes from a variety of medical specialties including psychotherapy, oncology, and pain management. Humor is beneficial in...

Evidence supports the use of humor in healing because it has the ability to provide a growth in meaningful relationships, and an increase in mental and physical health benefits. Three talking points could address these issues: mental health benefits, physical health benefits, and increasing the development of relationships that cultivate humor. 

Belief that humor aids the healing process comes from a variety of medical specialties including psychotherapy, oncology, and pain management. Humor is beneficial in the treatment of chronic pain syndromes and pain from procedures and surgeries.

It is believed that humor and laughter increase the chemicals in the brain that are responsible for many bodily functions including those that control heart rate and emotional reactions.  Studies point to laughter in the reduction of heart disease by reducing stress and regulating the heart rate.

Humor that leads to laughter can reduce a patient’s response to pain by creating a diversion while regulating the biological substances that modulate pain. Medical professionals encourage patients with pain to watch funny movies or find a way to integrate humor into their lives.

Humor plays a role in mental health, in part by changing a person’s point of view so they are able to see they have the ability to adapt to difficult situations by maintaining a more positive outlook in the face of adversity. Again, there is evidence that humor increases endorphins and hormones that are responsible of feelings of well-being.

Why were the boys on the plane?

In Chapter 1, Ralph meets Piggy. Ralph tells him that when his father (who's in the Navy) gets leave, he will come to rescue them. Piggy wonders how Ralph's father will even know where they are. Ralph answers that the people at the airport would tell him. Piggy replies, “Not them. Didn’t you hear what the pilot said? About the atom bomb? They’re all dead.” This suggests that the boys were evacuated (from England) due to...

In Chapter 1, Ralph meets Piggy. Ralph tells him that when his father (who's in the Navy) gets leave, he will come to rescue them. Piggy wonders how Ralph's father will even know where they are. Ralph answers that the people at the airport would tell him. Piggy replies, “Not them. Didn’t you hear what the pilot said? About the atom bomb? They’re all dead.” This suggests that the boys were evacuated (from England) due to the threat and/or reality of a nuclear war. 

This is a key part to understanding the themes of the novel. While the boys are trapped on the island, the exterior world of adults are engaged in a war. This creates two parallel societies: the boys and the adults beyond the island. Golding presents a thought provoking series of questions. For instance, if boys are stranded on an island, will they establish some senses of order and harmony or will they devolve into fighting and warfare? And, even if they do end up devolving into violence, are they more savage than their adult counterparts? The boys might be fighting with spears and rocks but does that make them more savage than the adults who fight with more technologically advanced weaponry? 

What are the internal conflicts in Flowers for Algernon?

Flowers for Algernon is about a developmentally disabled man named Charlie Gordon who undergoes a surgical procedure to increase his conventional intelligence. A mouse named Algernon has already undergone this procedure and has increased its intelligence. The internal conflict that results from the surgery, which makes Charlie into a conventionally "smart" person, is that he loses touch with his previous life and becomes more aware of his painful connections with other people.

For example, as Charlie gets conventionally smarter, he realizes that his co-workers at the factory he works at were mainly interested in making fun of him. In the letters that make up the novel, he writes, "I'm still a little angry that all the time people were laughing and making fun of me because I wasn't so smart." Eventually, he is fired from the factory because, as one of his former co-workers tells him, "It was evil when Eve listened to the snake and ate from the tree of knowledge." Charlie's co-workers feel left behind and offended when he becomes so much more intelligent. In addition, Charlie begins to develop a relationship with his teacher, Miss Kinnian, but when he becomes very advanced, he no longer has much in common with her.

Eventually, Charlie's intelligence declines, as the effects of the operation are not permanent, and Algernon, the mouse, dies. Charlie finds that he can't really connect with the people he was formerly friends with, including his co-workers at the factory and Miss Kinnian, and he decides to leave New York and go elsewhere to start a new life. 

How does Juliet's brief conversation with Paris reveal her attitude towards him?

Juliet's parents feel that now she is thirteen, she is more than old enough to be married. In Act I, Scene III, Juliet's mother tells her that she wants to set her up to be married to Paris. Juliet admits that she hasn't really thought about marriage, but will at least meet him before deciding one way or another. Of course, at the fateful party where Juliet is supposed to be getting to know Paris,...

Juliet's parents feel that now she is thirteen, she is more than old enough to be married. In Act I, Scene III, Juliet's mother tells her that she wants to set her up to be married to Paris. Juliet admits that she hasn't really thought about marriage, but will at least meet him before deciding one way or another. Of course, at the fateful party where Juliet is supposed to be getting to know Paris, she meets and falls in love with Romeo. 

The love and marriage between Juliet and Romeo is private, but she is very committed. Even after learning that Romeo has killed her beloved cousin, she feels allegiance to him and despises the presence of the man her parents still plan for her to marry. She resents Paris, and when they speak in Act IV, Scene I, she knocks down all of his compliments and attempts to be affectionate or personal with her. Paris is delighted that they will be married on the coming Thursday, but Juliet dreads it. She does not want a life where she must pretend to have a happy marriage, stifle her sadness for her husband, or live with a man she does not love! Perhaps Juliet hopes that by being rude to Paris, she can get him to change his mind and call the marraige off. If nothing else, their exchange in Act IV, Scene I shows how Juliet is using Paris as a tangible focal point for her sorrow over Tybalt and her anger towards her parents. 

Discuss the cardinal utility theory and its assumptions.

Utility can be thought of as "goodness" or "desirability"; if we are rational, we do things in order to maximize utility.

There are two basic concepts of utility:

Ordinal utility, in which utility can only be determined in relative terms; we can know that A is better than B, but not by how much. Ordinal utility can be thought of as measuring preferences--we prefer A to B.

Cardinal utility, in which utility is actually a real numerical measure of something, so that we can say that A is 5 units better than B or 7 units better than B. Cardinal utility can be thought of as measuring value--A is 5 units more valuable than B.

The core assumption of cardinal utility theory is that there is actually a cardinal utility we can measure; many economists believe that this is simply not possible, and all we can do is measure preferences.

Some define cardinal utility as "defined up to a linear transformation," but all they're really talking about is a unit of measurement. Length is "defined up to a linear transformation" in the same sense because you can measure it in meters or in feet.

The challenge then becomes figuring out what our units of measurement are, and whether we can actually measure them usefully; perhaps they are "happy seconds" or "quality-adjusted life years" (QALY, which are actually in widespread use in public health).

If we can't find a usable unit of measurement, then cardinal utility theory falls apart; if all we know is that some things are better than others but not by how much, then we can no longer make judgments under risk, because we can't say how many Bs we should be willing to give up for a given chance to get an A. The necessity of cardinal utility for rational judgment under risk is proven by the Von Neumann-Morgenstern Expected Utility Theorem.

How does the mood of Laurie Halse Anderson's Chains change when the barrel is kicked away?

The mood of a work of literature is the feeling that the author creates for the reader.  The mood, of course, can change throughout the work depending on what happens in the plot.  The point in Chainsyou mentioned in your question comes from the end of Chapter 18.  You ask specifically about when the "barrel is kicked away."  Before this time, the mood is fairly light.  Ruth is being carried by Curzon.  Ruth is...

The mood of a work of literature is the feeling that the author creates for the reader.  The mood, of course, can change throughout the work depending on what happens in the plot.  The point in Chains you mentioned in your question comes from the end of Chapter 18.  You ask specifically about when the "barrel is kicked away."  Before this time, the mood is fairly light.  Ruth is being carried by Curzon.  Ruth is giggling.  The reader wonders what is going on as citizens begin throwing things at the man named Hickey.  When the "barrel is kicked away," it is the moment of death for a man named Hickey, a soldier in the Continental Army who has been accused of treason by the British.  Here the mood switches to one of fear or horror.  Hickey is marched up stairs, is made to stand on top of a barrel, stands still as the noose is tied around his neck, and listens as drums begin to play.  In order to hang Hickey, the "barrel is kicked away," but at this moment, Isabel cannot take the image so she closes her eyes.  This confirms the negative mood of fear and horror.

What is the climax in the novel entitled To Sir, with Love?

Since To Sir with Love is a recounting of E.R. Braithwaite's experiences as a teacher in London's East End with students who are tough and non-compliant, there any number of incidents of high emotion and intensity.

Because this autobiography does not read as a novel, it also does not follow the normal plot outline with just one climax. Nevertheless, a particular climax that underscores the major theme of overcoming racial prejudices is found in Chapter...

Since To Sir with Love is a recounting of E.R. Braithwaite's experiences as a teacher in London's East End with students who are tough and non-compliant, there any number of incidents of high emotion and intensity.

Because this autobiography does not read as a novel, it also does not follow the normal plot outline with just one climax. Nevertheless, a particular climax that underscores the major theme of overcoming racial prejudices is found in Chapter Twenty. After the death of the mother of one of Braithwaite's students, Braithwaite orders a wreath to be sent to the family. However, because the student, Lawrence Seales, is "obviously of mixed parentage," none of the students will deliver it as they do not want to be seen going to "a coloured person's home."

One of the female students tries to explain to Mr. Braithwaite that if the girls were seen going to Seale's home, they would be "accused of all sorts of things." In bold response to her remarks, Pamela Dare volunteers to take the wreath, saying she is not afraid of gossip. Mr. Braithwaite thanks her and says he will take the bus and try to be there for the funeral.

The next day as he rides the bus, Braithwaite sits away from everyone, harboring old resentments of things said to him and about his race. After he steps off the bus, he heads towards the street on which Seale lives.

And then I stopped, feeling suddenly washed clean, whole and alive again. Tears were in my eyes, unashamedly, for there standing in a close, separate group...was my class...in their best clothes. O God, forgive me for the hateful thoughts, because I love them, these brutal disarming bastards, I love them....

Thus, Braithwaite's bitter disappointment in his students is overcome, and he realizes that he has not wasted his time with his painstaking efforts to teach them tolerance and goodwill toward others. Certainly, this is a climactic moment of high emotion and triumph for "Sir."

Identify the clues that lead to the tragic conclusion in The Scarlet Ibis.

The tragic conclusion is that a little brother dies after a long and exhausting fight with his physical disability. Death seems to haunt the story as two brothers work together to get Doodle to become as normal as other boys before he starts school. Descriptions and images set forth in the telling of the tale provide foreshadowing that aides one to predict the poor boy's end. For example, the beginning paragraph says the following:

"It was in the close of seasons, summer was dead but autumn had not yet been born, that the ibis lit in the bleeding tree. . . The last graveyard flowers were blooming, and their smell drifted across the cotton field and through every room of our house, speaking softly the names of our dead."

The above passage feels gloomy due to the speaker's attention to death-like images: the graveyard, the bleeding tree, and names of our dead. One's first impression might be to wonder who is dead or who will die in the story.

Other clues and factors that death is imminent are found throughout the story. One of the first clues is that Doodle is not expected to live long; however, he defies the odds and lives for about six years. The family gives him a name which invokes doubt in his brother's mind as he says the following:

"They named him William Armstrong, which was like tying a big tail on a small kite. Such a name sounds good only on a tombstone."

The image of the kite as compared to Doodle's real name seems overwhelming as it is; but, add to it the second comment about the tombstone and one can't escape the deathly image, foreshadowing, and strong implication to the fact that Doodle will die.

Finally, there is the image and symbolism of the scarlet ibis that unexpectedly shows up during lunch in the family's yard and dies. There is a direct correlation between the red bird and Doodle because they both seem to be sick unto death, alone in a cruel world, and hopelessly unable to move forward in life. Aunt Nicey gives the reader a clue at this point by saying, "Dead birds is bad luck. . . Specially red dead birds!"

As you read in the chapter opener, the Confederation Bridge cost $1.3 billion to build. Assume a daily traffic rate of 4,000 vehicles per day with...

The answer to this question really depends upon the interest rate at which funds were borrowed, or if we had the capital initially, the rate of return we could have gotten on that capital if it had remained unused. (Theoretically these two rates are supposed to converge to be the same at equilibrium, but in reality this almost never happens.)So instead let's calculate as if we are paying no interest, and then consider what...

The answer to this question really depends upon the interest rate at which funds were borrowed, or if we had the capital initially, the rate of return we could have gotten on that capital if it had remained unused. (Theoretically these two rates are supposed to converge to be the same at equilibrium, but in reality this almost never happens.)

So instead let's calculate as if we are paying no interest, and then consider what would happen if we'd had to pay interest.

With no interest, we simply need to figure out how long it takes to make back $1.3 billion if you have 4000 cars per day each paying $45.

4000 cars/day * $45/car * 365 days/year = $65.7 million/year

The break-even time is just dividing these two:
$1.3 billion / $65.7 million/year = 19.8 years

So, in just under 20 years the bridge will pay for itself; built in 1997 this means it will break even quite soon, in 2017.

Now think about what would happen if we had to pay interest; that money paid in 1997 would be worth more today if we'd kept it. This means that the time to break even on the bridge will be longer if we have to pay a high interest rate.

The following questions relate to Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet:1) How do Benvolio and Mercutio describe Romeo’s actions? What do they think...

1. Benvolio and Mercutio go in search of their friend at the start of Act 2. Mercutio believes that he has hurried home, but Benvolio corrects him by saying that he jumped over an orchard wall. They then cry out to him but get no response. They later give up and leave. Benvolio quips:

Come, he hath hid himself among these trees,
To be consorted with the humorous night:
Blind is his love and best befits the dark.

The two believe that Romeo has sought out a place where he can sulk undisturbed because he has been rejected by Rosaline. They think that he is dejected because of this and, therefore, does not wish to be disturbed and has sought comfort in the dark where no one can find him.

They are wrong, though, because Romeo has vaulted the wall of the Capulet orchard to see Juliet. The two had met at the Capulet's ball earlier and were smitten with each other. Romeo's only concern at this point is Juliet, and he seems to have forgotten about Rosaline.

2. When Romeo, who is hiding in the orchard, sees Juliet appear at an open window, he waxes lyrical about her beauty and utters exaggerated comparisons to describe her, such as:

But, soft! what light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Juliet is the sun...

...The brightness of her cheek would shame those stars,
As daylight doth a lamp; her eyes in heaven
Would through the airy region stream so bright
That birds would sing and think it were not night...

Romeo compares her to light since she has brought light into his soul. The illumination she has brought has washed away his sorrow, for he is enlightened and emboldened. The darkness of his depression has been overwhelmed by her glorious luminescence. The metaphoric images that he paints here clearly indicate his overwhelming infatuation and he wishes to be only with her, as he says:

It is my lady, O, it is my love!
O, that she knew she were!

See, how she leans her cheek upon her hand!
O, that I were a glove upon that hand,
That I might touch that cheek!

Romeo desperately wants her to know how he feels and feels and expresses an overwhelming need to be close to her.

In a similar vein, Juliet, when she speaks, utters the following sentiment:

O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet...

She has learnt that Romeo is a Montague, the sworn enemy of her family, and wishes that he would reject his name or alternatively, that he would swear to love her and she would then repudiate her identity to be with him. She further states that a name is meaningless since it can mean just about anything - there is nothing to it, and she ends by declaring:

...Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

She vows that she would take all of Romeo for herself if he should get rid of his name.

These two soliloquies are obvious indications of the two youngsters' infatuation with one another. One must appreciate that Romeo is, to a certain extent, on the rebound, having been rejected by Rosaline. The fact that he could so easily 'fall in love' again indicates his immaturity. He obviously feels something for Juliet, but one can hardly call it genuine love, for it has happened too suddenly and too soon. In fact, it is more of an emotional ointment with which he is salving his wounds.

Juliet, on the other hand, has never experienced romantic love. Romeo is her first love interest and she would, therefore, naively believe that she is genuinely in love. The desire to be with him and be his one and only are only the innocent pangs of desire an inexperienced young girl would experience. The two, in this instance, are experiencing overemphasized sentiments which they, in their naivety, believe to be genuine love. 

3. The friar is skeptical because Romeo had been constantly complaining to him about his unrequited feelings for Rosaline. He tells Romeo in scene three of Act 2:

Holy Saint Francis, what a change is here!
Is Rosaline, whom thou didst love so dear,
So soon forsaken? young men's love then lies
Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes.

The friar is suggesting that Romeo does not love with his heart, but with his eyes. He is guided by what he sees and not by what he feels, which, obviously, is something superficial. The friar cannot understand how Romeo could have wept so many a tear for Rosaline and now, suddenly, have had such a sudden change of heart.

The friar agrees to marry the two lovesick youngsters since he sees their conjoinment as a solution to end the feud between the warring Capulets and Montagues:

For this alliance may so happy prove,
To turn your households' rancour to pure love.

The friar is much too eager to marry the two and he is naive in believing that the solution to an 'age old' feud could be fashioned as easily as through a wedding. Added to this is also the fact that everything will be done in secret, which can only lead to greater resentment and bitterness from both families. As a trusted and respected member of the priesthood, there is also the moral aspect of his actions to consider. The friar's decision seems much too impulsive and lacks clear thinking and consideration and, as the unfolding events later prove, is a huge error of judgement on his part.